Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

1660661663665666943

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 747 ✭✭✭drogon.


    Is the mods deleting messages from this thread or is there an ongoing issue with boards? There was a chain about interest rates yesterday, that just vanished. Only noticed as there is a notification for a comment I made, and can't read it now!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭herbalplants


    In the headlines today :Why Ireland’s biggest private landlord is struggling - despite average rents of €1,800.

    The biggest worry about Ires is its exposure to interest rates.

    Last week it reached a deal to sell almost 200 west Dublin apartments to the Tuath Housing Agency for €72 million and is looking at offloading further assets.

    Remember the shills only get paid when you react to them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Wonder could there be an opportunity for the state to buy out those long term leases should this trend continue

    360k for Dublin apartments for a housing agency seems not bad considering the market



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Do you think if they had put those 200 apartments individually on the open market in one go they would have got more per unit?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Even if they got more per unit individually the relevant question is if the additional overheads of selling each unit individually would cancel that out. It would probably need to be a significant additional % to be worthwhile.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Yeah, I get that, from IRES point of view it makes sense, it was a bit of a hypothetical question mainly curious as to what others think what the impact of 200 apartments on at say 360k a piece and what would they sell for.

    Would they get snapped up at asking immediately given they represent good value to current prices?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭herbalplants


    I think they should have been sold individually to families.

    I am not familiar with the area but I don't think they would have been snapped up at 360k a peace. I see plenty of apartments for sale around that price in Dublin in good areas and they don't fly off the shelves or at least that is what I think.

    Remember the shills only get paid when you react to them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭herbalplants


    Interesting is even so they achieve good rents, still they don't make enough.

    Remember the shills only get paid when you react to them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭ittakestwo


    What is with the huge variation of rent for similar rooms. I see some double rooms asking €600 and in the same complex others asking €1200. Would it be presumed €1200 rooms are allowing couples while the €600 isn't. I am putting up a room to rent and I am confused.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Villa05


    I've no idea, I'm comparing to the quoted cost of construction we hear bandied about here

    To think Nama flogged apartments beside tallaght hospital at what worked out at circa 100k per unit shows the opportunities that have been missed over the last decade



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Personally I'd take the cost of construction figures bandied about with a very large pinch of salt!!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 747 ✭✭✭drogon.


    All of the apartments would have had tenants in them, the chance of any individuals wanting to buy them with tenants in-situ would be in the 1%. If they would have given notice for 200 families to vacate the premises so they could be sold, imagine there would have been another outrage!



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I wonder what the profile of the tenants was.

    Tuath are cost rental, affordable housing type of specialists. If the majority of the tenants don't qualify for these schemes, I would have thought if Tuath had 72m to invest they would be have been better off targeting their funds towards the demographic most in need of their support.

    So we have a booming market with rents and property prices driven higher because of scarcity of supply.

    Notwithstanding that, the largest profit/return for shareholders driven business in the market is offloading their properties as a forced seller.

    And the best price obtainable for these properties in this booming market is from a not for profit housing association.

    Seems legit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 747 ✭✭✭drogon.


    You really need to understand REIT structure to kind of understand why they sold them in the first place.

    Most REIT are asset rich and cash poor. REIT's pay no corporate tax in Ireland, this is because the tax structure is setup in a way that they must return 85% of profits to their shareholders. Thus moving the tax liability from REIT's to the shareholders. This also means that most REIT's have to borrow money for new projects and have very little capital in them. As interest rates rise and property value slowly goes down from the peak of last year, they will need to abide by their required LTV (loan to value). To do this, they will need to liquidate their assets fairly quickly and this is what is happening. Selling to any individuals is a nonstarter (it is to slow of a process), hence it will be another REIT, investors or housing agency would have bought it anyway. Thankfully in this case Tuath bought them, I bet they got it at a fairly decent discount too.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Sure, i know why they are selling -, they have no choice. They're forced sellers. As you say individual sales a non starter - "hence it will be another REIT, investors or housing agency".

    Unlikely to be another REIT as they're all in the same boat, it was always most likely to be a housing agency or the state.

    Totally understand why this is happening, it just doesn't seem like the market is underpinned by solid fundamentals.

    Charitable and not for profit housing agencies and the state might well achieve their aims better by not buying these properties and waiting to see how the market gets on without their support.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 747 ✭✭✭drogon.


    I still believe Tuath buying these are the best outcome here. Remember these aren’t distressed assets, someone will buy them at the end of day. People were complaining that individual Chinese investors were snapping up houses in Dublin, imagine if the Chinese setup a REIT’s of their own so people in China could invest in them by buying up these properties. If I recall correctly the Canadians are the biggest shareholders in IRES as an example.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    They technically don’t need to borrow but choose to do so as the bank loan is a cheaper than using investors capital. It also allows them to buy more properties. I would agree it’s a good outcome because you could easily have a bigger more capitalised fund snap it up as it’s still turning a 6% yield



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Villa05


    All explained here




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    Love all the people in the comments of the journal saying "These should be put on the open market where normal people can buy them".

    Some problems with that.

    You wont get these vacant for years. The same people looking for them to be sold to regular buyers will then be marching when the residents get their notice.

    The tax payer who is funding the charities is like a bottomless pit of money, so much easier to just spend it and then put the hand out for more.

    At the end of the day its just a restructure for the REIT - at the tax payers expense. Not going to be any new properties added to the market and its not going to have any effect on the price of other properties.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,462 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Who funds Tuath? Is it funded by the government essentially?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,462 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    So tax payer have paid 360k a pop for these apartments. Surely building them would have cost similar? But we'd have employed 100/0s and got back tax revenue.

    Is there any politicians calling for a state back building company? It seems like such an obvious and logical move?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    Crazy isnt it. Tuath spends tax payers money. The refill bucket is opened again to top up their funds.

    The money is flowing out of ordinary buyers pockets via taxes, into housing charities buckets, into REITs banks, and all keeping the affordable properties out of the hands of the poor people whos pockets they are emptying while at the same time increasing rents. And throw in a few hair brained schemes, rent controls and random legislation to finish the job.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    except the housing agency now has a steady stream of cash for the future (rents on this property) which allow them to plan and not being reliant on seeing what cash they get from the government each year.

    it’s the same stupid short term thinking in the HSE where the hire specialist for 6 month contracts to clear back logs. These contracts are nearly always required and logic would be to fill with a permanent role so patients get continuity and you don’t have a new specialist every 6 months wasting time getting up to speed with his work load. But because of not knowing exactly what funding be received from government they stick with 6 month contracts incase funding gets pulled…. At the end of the day no-body wins and it cost the taxpayer more to get a poorer service.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    The only people that will be looking for a state backed building company are people that will fill their pockets from it whether it be 100’s of managers pushing paper around or the workers knocking off at 3 or 4 o’clock because if they started a piece of work that mean they needed to work out 30min overtime to complete. The overtime wouldn’t be approved….basically Everyman and their dog on the take at the tax payers expense.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,462 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    So you're advocating the continuation of tax funded charities purchasinh housing stock adhocly on the open market from Global investment funds?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    Anyone who thinks the housing charities are going to get off the government tit obviously has not been paying attention over the years.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    They are the government for all intensive purposes…the only reason they are structured like this is so that any debt they have is not consolidated into government debt.

    Post edited by Timing belt on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭newmember2


    ..



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    The point I'm making is, that for whatever reason, a bigger and better capitalised fund did not snap it up, despite the 6% yield.

    You can be sure they had the chance, it's not as if IRES were offering Tuath a good deal on the QT, they were seeking the highest bidder.

    So the highly leveraged investors are forced sellers of assets, but those investors with cash to spend are being outbid on those assets by housing agencies/government.

    Sure it is a 6% yield, but Tuath aren't in the business of chasing yield, quite the opposite. They're in the business of providing cost rentals and assisting those struggling with affordability.

    So I am struggling to see the business case from Tuath's point of view in chasing a 6% yield by outbidding private investors on a fully tenanted block.

    Surely if they have 72m to deploy in achieve their aims and objectives it could be better spent on foregoing yield to provide cheaper accommodation for those who most need it?



Advertisement
Advertisement